Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nab443 | Hacker News Reader

I would not call apps built statically "the correct way". It offers benefits but also drawbacks. One of them being that you can't update statically linked libraries in it with security fixes without replacing the binary completely, which can be an issue if the context does not allow it (unsupported proprietary software, lost dependency code, ...). It can also lead to resource consumption faster, which can be an issue in resource constrained systems.

View on HN

If the app is actively maintained, it will update the dependency to fix the security issue.

If the app is not actively maintained, unless trivial, it likely has unpatched vulnerabilities of its own anyway.

And on macOS, if the app is not actively maintained, it usually breaks after a couple major releases regardless of anything else, because Apple doesn't believe in backwards compatibility.

I know, I said that I would call it the correct way. :) I'm aware of the drawbacks, I just think they're clearly outweighed by the benefits.

If nothing else, consider that the limitations of a statically linked binary match those of a traditional Mac application bundle. While Mac apps are usually dynamically linked, they also include all of their dependencies within the app bundle. I suppose you could argue it's technically possible to open an app bundle and replace one of the dylibs, but this is clearly not an intended use case; if nothing else, you're going to break the code signature.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com